4 ms·

Would love to post some relevant, intelligent and on-topic, maybe even amusing comment, but the site doesn't work with IE.

marcofucci 15y ago
It doesn't work at all? Well if you use another browser and take a look at it you might understand why. I would probably do the same.
melling 15y ago
It works in Firefox 3.6, which is obsolete, IMHO. What "HTML5" features are missing in IE? Give the IE10 beta a try. That will address many of the IE HTML5 issues.
- Spearchucker 15y ago
  Installing another browser (or even an OS, in the case of IE10) should not be a requisite for accessing a web site. The irony is that this site was built by a company whose browser was part inspired by that very nature of IE6.
  - melling 15y ago
    I guess if Google is using something browser specific it's one thing. However, if they are simply using open standards and Microsoft is slow to implement them, that's a different story. Seriously, developers should be more aggressive about not supporting "legacy" browsers. Many people, and organizations, won't upgrade until they have to. IE6 and IE7 should be dumped now and IE8 should be dumped in a couple of years. There are other options.
    - Spearchucker 15y ago
      I'm using IE9.
      - melling 15y ago
        In IE9, Microsoft greatly improved Javascript performance. However, better HTML5 compatibility comes with IE10: http://html5test.com/results/desktop.html http://html5test.com/results/desktop.html
        Spearchucker 15y ago
        Lol yeah. My point about having to change browser for a site stands though. It's a self-imposed "denial-of-customer" attack :-) I raised it because I see it more often than I would expect, and expect it least of all from an ad company like Google. HTML 5 is great and all, but if a web site is trying to gain pageviews/users/whatever, then effectively blocking out one of the most widely-used browsers makes no sense to me.
        melling 15y ago
        Google isn't selling ads on this site. They are showing off Chrome, which they are also trying to market. In short, this entire thread was pointless. Thanks for wasting my time.
        Spearchucker 15y ago
        Nowhere did I see any statement saying anything even remotely like "This site shows off Chrome. It is intended only for Chrome, because it is a Chrome showcase"[1]. So: Whether they're selling ads on the site or not, is irrelevant. They're an ad company, and (one would assume) want, as a consequence, to get as many people to their online estates as they can. That makes this site, whether it displays ads or not, a springboard to their sites that do. Assuming they're in the business of making money [2]. Similarly, whether HTML5 is a standard or not, is also irrelevant. The effect is the same as the effect IE6 had. It denies access to people who choose not to use a specific tool. It's like telling me Linux is good because it's free. Free doesn't make it compelling. Standards won't make me switch browsers. Especially unratified new ones [3]. If Google're hoping to win me back (I've become anti-Google over the years), or to use their browser, then this (blocking access to a web site I may like) is not the way to do it. [1] Doesn't even say it's an HTML5 showcase. This is what the site does say: You’re missing out… Sorry, the Google Art Project uses technology that your browser doesn’t understand. Install Chrome Frame for Internet Explorer to improve your experience of using the web. It’s simple and only needs to be done once. Install Chrome Frame. [2] I doubt they're altruistic enough to put a site up for the benefit of the public at large, and not the benefit of their shareholders. If they are that altruistic they're failing their shareholders. [3] Understand me here, I think standards are awesome. They're even more awesommer when the standards are ubiquitous. Which HTML5 isn't.
  - chwahoo 15y ago
    Actually a site like this, which offers a nice, free experience on which nobody is dependent (or entitled) is a great venue for Google to push users to upgrade their browsers.
  - ajacksified 15y ago
    Downvotes totally undeserved. The notion that you have to use a specific browser- even if it's "a modern browser"- should have died with IE 6. Progressive enhancement of web applications is not hard, and is only overlooked because of ignorance or laziness. "use chrome" sounds an awful lot like "site only available in IE 6". That's why we're in this mess.
    - melling 15y ago
      I just went through this with someone else. It's completely different. IE6 specific was not any sort of standard. There really isn't any need to nurse people along until they feel the need to upgrade. "Progressive enhancement" does cost money and take time, which could be better spent on people who upgrade to a modern browser. This is all obvious, right? You can also use Firefox as far back as 3.6, an "ancient" browser, if you'd like.
      - ajacksified 15y ago
        It's not different. It's not different at all. It isn't about standards, it isn't about IE6 or FireFox or Chrome. It's about providing a baseline of functionality and building up features. It doesn't cost any more money or take any more time than it does to build top-down - and in fact, in the long run, there's a quantifiable cost savings in maintenance of an application built with a solid foundation. It's not more work, it's just working differently. You'd plan and build your back end to scale, to be maintainable, to be testable; why not the front end?

marcofucci 15y ago

It doesn't work at all? Well if you use another browser and take a look at it you might understand why. I would probably do the same.

melling 15y ago

It works in Firefox 3.6, which is obsolete, IMHO. What "HTML5" features are missing in IE? Give the IE10 beta a try. That will address many of the IE HTML5 issues.

Spearchucker 15y ago
Installing another browser (or even an OS, in the case of IE10) should not be a requisite for accessing a web site. The irony is that this site was built by a company whose browser was part inspired by that very nature of IE6.
- melling 15y ago
  I guess if Google is using something browser specific it's one thing. However, if they are simply using open standards and Microsoft is slow to implement them, that's a different story. Seriously, developers should be more aggressive about not supporting "legacy" browsers. Many people, and organizations, won't upgrade until they have to. IE6 and IE7 should be dumped now and IE8 should be dumped in a couple of years. There are other options.
  - Spearchucker 15y ago
    I'm using IE9.
    - melling 15y ago
      In IE9, Microsoft greatly improved Javascript performance. However, better HTML5 compatibility comes with IE10: http://html5test.com/results/desktop.html http://html5test.com/results/desktop.html
      - Spearchucker 15y ago
        Lol yeah. My point about having to change browser for a site stands though. It's a self-imposed "denial-of-customer" attack :-) I raised it because I see it more often than I would expect, and expect it least of all from an ad company like Google. HTML 5 is great and all, but if a web site is trying to gain pageviews/users/whatever, then effectively blocking out one of the most widely-used browsers makes no sense to me.
        melling 15y ago
        Google isn't selling ads on this site. They are showing off Chrome, which they are also trying to market. In short, this entire thread was pointless. Thanks for wasting my time.
        Spearchucker 15y ago
        Nowhere did I see any statement saying anything even remotely like "This site shows off Chrome. It is intended only for Chrome, because it is a Chrome showcase"[1]. So: Whether they're selling ads on the site or not, is irrelevant. They're an ad company, and (one would assume) want, as a consequence, to get as many people to their online estates as they can. That makes this site, whether it displays ads or not, a springboard to their sites that do. Assuming they're in the business of making money [2]. Similarly, whether HTML5 is a standard or not, is also irrelevant. The effect is the same as the effect IE6 had. It denies access to people who choose not to use a specific tool. It's like telling me Linux is good because it's free. Free doesn't make it compelling. Standards won't make me switch browsers. Especially unratified new ones [3]. If Google're hoping to win me back (I've become anti-Google over the years), or to use their browser, then this (blocking access to a web site I may like) is not the way to do it. [1] Doesn't even say it's an HTML5 showcase. This is what the site does say: You’re missing out… Sorry, the Google Art Project uses technology that your browser doesn’t understand. Install Chrome Frame for Internet Explorer to improve your experience of using the web. It’s simple and only needs to be done once. Install Chrome Frame. [2] I doubt they're altruistic enough to put a site up for the benefit of the public at large, and not the benefit of their shareholders. If they are that altruistic they're failing their shareholders. [3] Understand me here, I think standards are awesome. They're even more awesommer when the standards are ubiquitous. Which HTML5 isn't.
- chwahoo 15y ago
  Actually a site like this, which offers a nice, free experience on which nobody is dependent (or entitled) is a great venue for Google to push users to upgrade their browsers.
- ajacksified 15y ago
  Downvotes totally undeserved. The notion that you have to use a specific browser- even if it's "a modern browser"- should have died with IE 6. Progressive enhancement of web applications is not hard, and is only overlooked because of ignorance or laziness. "use chrome" sounds an awful lot like "site only available in IE 6". That's why we're in this mess.
  - melling 15y ago
    I just went through this with someone else. It's completely different. IE6 specific was not any sort of standard. There really isn't any need to nurse people along until they feel the need to upgrade. "Progressive enhancement" does cost money and take time, which could be better spent on people who upgrade to a modern browser. This is all obvious, right? You can also use Firefox as far back as 3.6, an "ancient" browser, if you'd like.
    - ajacksified 15y ago
      It's not different. It's not different at all. It isn't about standards, it isn't about IE6 or FireFox or Chrome. It's about providing a baseline of functionality and building up features. It doesn't cost any more money or take any more time than it does to build top-down - and in fact, in the long run, there's a quantifiable cost savings in maintenance of an application built with a solid foundation. It's not more work, it's just working differently. You'd plan and build your back end to scale, to be maintainable, to be testable; why not the front end?